[GP] Amount of starting territories in 1vs1

[#1_stunna]

Cairns Coral Coast

[Ace Rimmer]

Second, the dice aren't that predictable. On maps like Solar System and Draknor, I've gone first my fair share of the time. Some of those first turns result in winning 2 or even 3 territories from my opponent. Other first turns result in winning 0 territories. I play my fair share of 1v1 as well. I like the challenge that it brings to go second and have the opponent take one or more territories from me. I win a fair share of those, but, yes, ultimately the player who goes first wins - no matter which map it is. Typically an inexperienced player or a player new to a map will be the one to lose when going first - on any map.

I agree the dice are not predictable, but I would say that on average, this makes it more unfair. I disagree with your statement that regardless of the map, the first player wins. Sure if you are playing an experienced player, but if you put two experienced players together on an unfair map, I feel it's more likely that the player who gets the first turn wins, which is unfair. On a fair map, I think the second player has an equal shot at winning (depending on dice/drop of course).

There are maps that should see a reduction. Ridiculously large maps like Stalingrad, WWII Europe, etc. On those maps, there are simply too many armies awarded tot he player who goes first.

I don't play those large maps enough to have enough insight. I'd love to get other opinions from players who play those maps.

What I would like to see is some kind of coding that prevents multi-territory continent bonuses to be handed out on the drop. One example would be any continental bonus on the Classic map. Another example would be any continental bonus or capitals bonus on BeNeLux.

Me too, but that would be a separate suggestion, or tangential to what I'm doing here.

[Ace Rimmer]

If I'm right, you're suggesting that starting neutrals be added to maps which currently have a "non-golden" number of starting territories. The other thing to consider is that on some maps, two or three starting neutrals will need to be added to mitigate an unfair drop.

What would be useful is to get a complete list of maps that are impacted by this, and the location of any proposed starting neutrals (remember that these will have to be in the same place in every single game on the map).

I'm working on this. I'll probably have a list up early next week.

Jake

[trapyoung]

If I'm right, you're suggesting that starting neutrals be added to maps which currently have a "non-golden" number of starting territories. The other thing to consider is that on some maps, two or three starting neutrals will need to be added to mitigate an unfair drop.

Is there anyway to code that the first round deployments for every player are equal to their initial territory drop. So if every player is dropped 15 territories and then Player 1 takes 1 territory from Player 3 and drops them to 14, Player 3's deployment for the turn will still be 5 armies? That would be a simple XML fix and not require neutrals to be inserted in various maps nor require selecting a permanent neutral territory for each map.

[Queen_Herpes]

If I'm right, you're suggesting that starting neutrals be added to maps which currently have a "non-golden" number of starting territories. The other thing to consider is that on some maps, two or three starting neutrals will need to be added to mitigate an unfair drop.

Is there anyway to code that the first round deployments for every player are equal to their initial territory drop. So if every player is dropped 15 territories and then Player 1 takes 1 territory from Player 3 and drops them to 14, Player 3's deployment for the turn will still be 5 armies? That would be a simple XML fix and not require neutrals to be inserted in various maps nor require selecting a permanent neutral territory for each map.

I agree with this perspective from trapyoung. If I understand it correctly, he wants everyone to be given the same number of armies in round one, regardless of whether they go first, second, or third. This would prevent, IMO, completely redoing every map out there that has a perceived imbalance of territories.

I say "perceived imbalance of territories" because I don't think we will ever come up with the right number of territories to start with on any given map. Understanding that in 1v1 a player-who-goes-first starts with 15 territories then reduces his enemy to 14 territories has then subjected his enemy to a loss of one army. However, what about the imbalance in a game where both players start with 14 territories? The benefit still leans towards the player-who-goes-first. Assuming victorious round one dice (which we are assuming throughout this discussion...and I believe that is a huge-leap-assumption), the player-who-goes-first now has 15 territories and player2 (with either 13 or 14 territories) is put in the difficult position of necessity to knock player-who-goes-first down from 15 to 14 (and increase his own territories up to 14 or 15). Similarly, if player-who-goes-first gains two territories in round one (up to 16 from 14), player2 is at an even greater disadvantage.

All that being said, I believe that trapyoung has a better solution. Give all players the same number of round1 armies. I might even go so far as to suggest that in round one no bonuses are awarded to any player who is dropped a bonus, but, I think trapyoung's suggestion is good enough for now.

[AndyDufresne]

Trap's suggestion is something I think that is outside of this suggestion, and something more complicated than revisiting and updating older XMLs. However, it might find a home in a new topic.


--Andy

[trapyoung]

Trap's suggestion is something I think that is outside of this suggestion, and something more complicated than revisiting and updating older XMLs. However, it might find a home in a new topic.


--Andy

I was just trying to determine whether there were multiple ways to address this problem that Jake and others have noted. So I'm just spitballing at the moment. I think this would be particularly useful in games like Waterloo where a 1v1 gives a deploy of around 10 (ignoring bonuses that might be dropped) and with the use of bombardments and hot dice, the second players deploy could be decreased to something like 6 before their first move.

I really viewed this topic as indicating a problem prevalent on certain maps and then if there is enough interest that warrants inquiry then a solution can be negotiated and implemented so I can start another topic if necessary but my first post was really regarding the viability of such a resolution

[Ace Rimmer]

I was just trying to determine whether there were multiple ways to address this problem that Jake and others have noted. So I'm just spitballing at the moment. I think this would be particularly useful in games like Waterloo where a 1v1 gives a deploy of around 10 (ignoring bonuses that might be dropped) and with the use of bombardments and hot dice, the second players deploy could be decreased to something like 6 before their first move.

I really viewed this topic as indicating a problem prevalent on certain maps and then if there is enough interest that warrants inquiry then a solution can be negotiated and implemented so I can start another topic if necessary but my first post was really regarding the viability of such a resolution

You sound like a f*cking lawyer with all that talk.

All that being said, I believe that trapyoung has a better solution. Give all players the same number of round1 armies. I might even go so far as to suggest that in round one no bonuses are awarded to any player who is dropped a bonus, but, I think trapyoung's suggestion is good enough for now.

This may be a better option for 1v1, especially on larger maps. I don't typically play large maps on 1v1, so I don't have any experience on them to draw from. However, we still have problems on certain maps where you drop 12 or 15 territories on 4p. The rule would have to apply to all players' first turn in games that are not 1v1.

Trap's suggestion is something I think that is outside of this suggestion, and something more complicated than revisiting and updating older XMLs. However, it might find a home in a new topic.

If there is a consensus that this is a better idea, it will potentially take longer to implement, as this would require an XML engine change via lack, not a simple change to XML via the Foundry. That's why I approached it this way.

[Queen_Herpes]

Trap's suggestion is something I think that is outside of this suggestion, and something more complicated than revisiting and updating older XMLs. However, it might find a home in a new topic.


--Andy

I'm all about an easy solution, but I'm not necessarily on board with the original suggestion by Jakewilliams based on reasons already mentioned. It would fundamentally change gameplay on a number of maps. In the end, will it improve gameplay on those maps? If this is to be investigated I think one map should be attempted on a beta-basis. This would need to be a map played by a lot of players and chosen frequently to be played. The original version, if kept open at the same time the beta version is being trialed, could also be played for comparison.

[TheForgivenOne]

Alright, due to that nice... Hm, "vent" by trap in GD, i feel like pulling this up again. I really don't see a downside to older maps being updated to make them more "fair" on round 1.

Has any list of maps come up that the drop is set on 12/15/18?

[Ace Rimmer]

Still working on the list, I'll try to finish it this coming week.

[Ace Rimmer]

OK, so I have my spreadsheet made with all the information (hopefully all correct).

Questions to pose:

1. Is a 12/15 terit drop an advantage in a multiplayer (3+) non-team game? I would say no as the first player can't take the bonus from all the other players, so it is not a large advantage like it is in 1v1 or team games
2. Is there an upper limit where it no longer makes a difference? For example, in a 4p Battle of Actium game, you start with 24 territories each. Would moving this down to 23 (causing you to drop 7 instead of make a large difference?
3. What about games where you get 12 for a quads game? Is that considered a problem?

Link to my spreadsheet (probably requires a google docs account): http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... utput=html

red & bold = non-magic number
blue & bold = deviates from the estimated math due to coded starting positions
x/y in cell = different starting number for 2/3 players due to coded starting positions

[natty dread]

1. I'd say it can be... the current foundry guidelines are to optimize drops for all player numbers.

2. Well if it's something like 9 vs 10 troops then it probably won't make a difference

3. yes, I'd say so.

[thenobodies80]

Great work Jake!

In a multiplayer non team game an unfair starts is less important because, if a player is in the lead, then the others tend to attack the leader. So, with a 12/15 territories the first player could take an advantage, but it won't be kept for so long.
Usually maps with 72+ territories give an advantage to the player who goes first in any case (specially in a 1vs1). For example if you start first and you deploy 9 or more troops in a single territory there's no way , except horrible dice, that your oppponent will start the game with the same number of troops to deploy. In any case, if i remember correctly, the old limit was Waterloo (104).

[lord voldemort]

quads drops of 12 are well unfair...waterloo comes to mind off the top of my head

[Queen_Herpes]

Draknor: level 1. In 1v1 you each start with 12 terits. If you take a single terit from the next player, they start with 11 (while you have 13) and it's very hard to take back two territories with a drop of 3 troops. First turn is a major advantage in a sequential game, or non-speed freestyle game.

Solar System 4 players (so either 2v2 dubs or 4p) you each start with 15 terits. With normal rolls the first turn, you can get the next player to 14 terits and at a disadvantage to start (they get 4 to drop opposed to the 5 the first player started with). With great dice you take 4 terits and they drop 3 (while you dropped 5).

This would be of lesser importance in multiplayer or manual games - but as I play mostly team or 1v1 games this affects me greatly.

Jake

I believe that a lot of excellent effort has been put forth by jakewilliams on this topic. However, there is a slippery slope here. If both players in a one v one are on a map that drops them 11 territories each, the player-who-goes-first gets the advantage of getting the first shot at gaining 12 territories. If that player-who-goes-first(player1) gains that 12th territory and does so by knocking the player-who-goes-second (player2) down to 10 territories, is there not an advantage that needs to be mitigated there for round 2?

With this suggestion, the assumption is that the number of neutral-owned territories will be increased. With an increase in neutral territories there will be a decrease in border-connections between territories owned by player1 and player2. The decrease in border-connections between player1 and player2 will result in a real difficulty for player2 to attack a territory owned by player1 and reduce player1's territory count to below 12 (or 15, or 18, or 21).

One way to mitigate this situation is to place all players ON ALL MAPS (no matter what the game type) in a situation where each player is dropped 10 territories (or less). This would require player1 to conquer 2 (or more) territories in order to gain an increase in the territory-count-bonus. Same would go for all other players and might create a more level-playing field, but, ultimately, the benefit goes to the player-who-goes-frst (player1) and I do not believe there is a way to effectively deal with the benefit of going first in any game on any map based on the suggestion herein to reduce the number of dropped territories on tens of maps.

What will be accomplished, is that gameplay will be changed if this suggestion goes through, sufficiently enough perhaps to alter whether a map will be played or not. I happen to like Draknor the way it is. How many other players are out there that share a similar belief about Draknor or other maps?

[trapyoung]

I don't think the 11 terr drop is a problem. If one gets to 12 and drops the other to 10, the point is that the deploys for the first round are the same - even +3s. I think that jake's suggestion is good but ultimately the site should attempt to have a system where your initial deploy cannot be ruined by someone moving first so that the deployments are equal even if someone drops you 9 or 10 territories (for huge maps). First round deployment parity should be the goal and then what happens after that is fair game. Maybe even the goal should be initial army deployment based on initial territories alone (not bonuses dropped and not changing when someone loses a territory from 12-11 in weird maps)

[thenobodies80]

No news here?....it was a good suggestion, I can't believe that nobody is interested in this possible improvement ....i'm willing to help if there will be something to change in the xmls, but i'd like to hear more people opinions about Jake's list --> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... utput=html

[betiko]

Amount of starting territories in 1vs1


Hi; I just think that on some maps, the amount of starting territories make the 1vs1 games really unfair. I think that in no map a player should start with 12 territories; because he wil start with a too big advantage. A map such as classic is perfect; 14 starting territories makes it almost impossible to reduce the second player to 11 before he even started his first turn. Therefore, my suggestion would be to change all maps that in 1vs1 have 12, 15 or 18 starting territories and to make 2 more starting neutrals. starting with 11 (or less depending on the map); 14 or 17 would make more sense.



Specifics/Details:

• xxxxxxx

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• this would guarantee a stronger balance in 1vs1 games and would give a better chance to the player playing second

[betiko]

no one ever thought some maps were unfair for this?

[AndyDufresne]

Most maps in development in the Foundry (and pretty much for the last couple of years), take into account unbalanced 1vs1, either by making it so, or making it as fair as possible without hurting the gameplay for other settings.

Are the maps you referring to mostly older maps? Do you have a list?


--Andy

[Geger]

Hard to make a complete list, but here are some examples :
- Portugal
- Italy
- Draknor lvl1

Each player start with 12 regions in 1vs1

[chapcrap]

Africa starts at 15v15.

[AndyDufresne]

Hard to make a complete list, but here are some examples :
- Portugal
- Italy
- Draknor lvl1

Each player start with 12 regions in 1vs1

Africa starts at 15v15.

These are pretty old maps:

Africa Image (Apr 25, 2006)
Portugal (Sep 27, 2007)
Italy (Sep 27, 2007)
Dungeon of Draknor : Halls of Testing (an 18, 2008)

Perhaps contacting thenobodies80 and seeing if it is possible to finagle the XML without changing any of the gameplay is possible, to make 1vs1 more fair.


--Andy

[thenobodies80]

There was some discussion about this in past. https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=122033
If someone is willing to help/suggest/etc, I'm very open to find a possible fix for those old maps who have an unfair drop, just throw me a PM.

Ace Rimmer wrote a "complete list" of these maps, probably it needs to be updated but I think that it lists mostly all maps involved in some way.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 2OQL#gid=1

Nobodies